Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

TheHammer wrote:A democratically elected superintendent did not want the school system to support the meeting of an event that was going to be clearly bigoted towards a religious and ethnic group.

Good!

They can still meet elsewhere. They can still pay for facilities. This is a blatant instance in which people are conflating freedom of speech with the notion that speech can never be censored, stopped, or otherwise stifled in various venues or locales.

I'm sure if these modern day Paul and Paulette Reveres want to dress up and LARP as slave holding old white dudes while complaining about the Kenyan in the White House they can do that at the school whenever they want. When that speech becomes hate speech, which is what these discussions about Islam always come down to, I don't see why the school must support and shoulder the costs of that speech.

Keep that in mind the next time the government starts thinking that your view points are dangerous or bigoted.

This is not stopping free speech.

They are still allowed to do their speech wherever they want. They just won't be allowed to do it with government support and money.

Then again, I could buy into your way of thinking and start railing against Fox News for not letting me come on to spout my Marxist Feminist Dialectic and get upset that a company that uses the public airwaves is restricting my free speech.

Except the government is supporting some speech, but not others, based on content.

That's blatently forbidden by the 1st Amendment. The government can choose not to support any speech at all. But you can't pick and choose based on content.

TheHammer wrote:Then again, I could buy into your way of thinking and start railing against Fox News for not letting me come on to spout my Marxist Feminist Dialectic and get upset that a company that uses the public airwaves is restricting my free speech.

Fox News is cable.

I don't think the First Amendment says what you think it says!

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Where does it say what you think it says?

Here are some of the rights it guarantees:

First, Freedom of Religion and the Separation Clause.
Second, Freedom of Speech and the Press.
Third, The Right to Petition and Assembly.

Where in the First Amendment do you read that says the government can't support or make speech and decide on what type of speech to do based on content? I'm serious, where in the First Amendment do you read that?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat, I don't think you know what Fox News being on cable actually means. It still falls under the FCC in a variety of means and reasons.

Even still, scratch FoxNews. Why is that view point not heard on conservative talk radio? I'll give my local AM station a call and ask them to make time for my excellent analysis and to bump that complete loser and troll Mark Levin off the air.

You're adorable.

KEEP ROCKING IN THE FREE WORLD!

Or keep talking about crap you have no idea about and then become a troll when you're called out. I guess that is a successful way to live as an adult as well!

If you'd like, when I get home, I can pull out my treatise on 1st amendment law and cite supreme court decisions that support my assertion.

SCOTUS has held that public forums cannot be regulated for content, even if owned by the government and not a traditional forum. A school classroom opened up for clubs/groups is a classic example of such.

You're referring to equal access, which is different.

It's okay, that's an easy mistake to make and I've seen a lot of first year law school students make it.

TheHammer wrote:First, Freedom of Religion and the Separation Clause.

Those are two separate rights, they're called "The Establishment Clause" and the "Free Exercise Clause." The first prevents the establishment of religion, the second prevents interference in the free exercise of religion.

TheHammer wrote:Second, Freedom of Speech and the Press.

Again, two separate rights. I think I linked to an article earlier distinguishing the two.

TheHammer wrote:Third, The Right to Petition and Assembly.

Two separate rights.

TheHammer wrote:Where in the First Amendment do you read that says the government can't support or make speech and decide on what type of speech to do based on content? I'm serious, where in the First Amendment do you read that?

"Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech"

TheHammer wrote:biccat, I don't think you know what Fox News being on cable actually means. It still falls under the FCC in a variety of means and reasons.

Sure I do. It means it's not a broadcast station, and therefore isn't "using the public airwaves." I don't think cable means what you think it means.

The Hammer wrote:Even still, scratch FoxNews. Why is that view point not heard on conservative talk radio? I'll give my local AM station a call and ask them to make time for my excellent analysis and to bump that complete loser and troll Mark Levin off the air.

There are plenty of public airwaves available. If you would like, I'd be happy to provide you with a list of channels that you could purchase. Then you can host your own excellent analysis on AM radio.

Polonius wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:An example of the government repressing free speech.

I guess in the broadest possible sense. It's a terrible example, as the protesters were more than a little violent and were impeding the ability of the college to function.

Shooting students is all right in order to allow a college to function?

At the time the Guard started firing the students had started to disperse (partly because of the threat of the Guard) and were not engaged in any serious violence. There had been incidents earlier.

Some of the students killed were not involved in the protest and were hit by stray shots while walking between lectures.

Let's just say it was not a shining example of top quality crowd control and law enforcement.

TheHammer wrote:KEEP ROCKING IN THE FREE WORLD!

Or keep talking about crap you have no idea about and then become a troll when you're called out. I guess that is a successful way to live as an adult as well!

Moderator Frazzled here. Lets remember Dakka Rule #1 or else I get the distinct pleasure of dropping temporary or even permanent suspensions (happy happy joy joy). Just because you disagree with a poster does not give you license to insult, attack, or denigrate them. Thats the Moderator's job.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Polonius wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:An example of the government repressing free speech.

I guess in the broadest possible sense. It's a terrible example, as the protesters were more than a little violent and were impeding the ability of the college to function.

Shooting students is all right in order to allow a college to function?

At the time the Guard started firing the students had started to disperse (partly because of the threat of the Guard) and were not engaged in any serious violence. There had been incidents earlier.

Some of the students killed were not involved in the protest and were hit by stray shots while walking between lectures.

Let's just say it was not a shining example of top quality crowd control and law enforcement.

Yes, because I'm clearly saying that the reaction was justified. I think the shooting isn't even a free speech issue. Wanting to break up the protest was. The shooting was... something worse.

TheHammer wrote:You're referring to equal access, which is different.

It's okay, that's an easy mistake to make and I've seen a lot of first year law school students make it.

No, that's not equal access. Equal access relates only to extracurricular activities and groups affiliated with publicly funded secondary schools (so, almost all US secondary schools), not state property being made available for public use.

Kilkrazy wrote:A phobia is an irrational fear.

As a mod, I will remind people that DakkaDakka does not operate a policy of unfettered free speech.

A clinical phobia is an irrational fear, but not all -phobias are of that nature. Cynophobia, for example, is an irrational fear of dogs; photophobia, in contrast, is a physiological and very rational reaction to light caused by underlying conditions.

As for the reasonableness of my earlier point, let us consider the predictive words of a rational man;

"Images of the burning of a Koran would undoubtedly be used by extremists in Afghanistan – and around the world – to inflame public opinion and incite violence," said Gen Petraeus.

"It is precisely the kind of action the Taliban uses and could cause significant problems. Not just here but everywhere in the world we are engaged with the Islamic community," he said in a statement.

As I pointed out in my earlier post, he proved prescient.

As to the rather odd objection that this line only addresses the fear of a small, malignant minority... well, duh. Is there some rational fear based on fear of the slacker subculture every major religion has in abundance? A poster earlier claimed that this line of reasoning was like blaming Christianity for the actions of the KKK; this a) reflects a misunderstanding of the relationship between Christianity and the KK so divorced from reality it should be astonishing, and b) it rather haphazardly glosses over the the whole point of the discussion, the "heckler's veto".

Put simply, there must be something more then simple, irrational bigotry underlying statements like the General's above;
-If a yahoo in Michigan burns a cross on his property, he might merit a passing mention in the local papers as a sad, pathetic schmuck.
-If he puts a copy of the Christian Bible in a pot of human detritus, he might qualify for a grant, he might get some nasty letters, and might get invited to some very swanky parties in NY/LA.

Now, on the other hand, if the pastor of a tiny, irrelevant church in bucksnout Florida burns a particular book, it's an international incident: riots are held, people are decapitated and the people in power are near universal in condemning, alongside the loss of life, the Constitutionally protected speech of the pastor. Even the Republicans are getting in on the act (well, Lindsay Graham, but he still counts).

And in the interest of being clear for our foreign readers, it is absolutely the case that any person can burn any copy of any holy book they themselves own (with, conceivably, some aversions for historic texts and contested property, but don't quote me on that one) in an exercise of their 1st amendment rights.

Is there something we might call "Islam (or better, Muslim) phobia"? Of course, founded in the notion that this particular ethnic group is, unlike any other ethnic group, monolithic, and possessing no individual animus or agency, or . That, however, must be distinguished from the entirely rational fears that motivate people like the General and the FBI, who realize that provoking one particular religious group can and will have dire, and likely deadly, consequences. That is what makes it a "heckler's veto";

Burn a Book of Mormon? Letters and harsh words come your way.
Burn a King James Bible? Letters and harsh words come your way.
Burn a Torah Scroll? Letters and harsh words come your way.
Burn the Holy Koran? People will die, and you will be condemned by people in the highest reaches of government and .

sebster wrote:

Buzzsaw wrote:With all due respect, you're wasting your time; capitulation to the hecklers isn't an ongoing battle, it's a war almost completely won, by the hecklers.

What? We're talking about a case where political group had to move their meeting from one venue to another. It is, at worst, an inconvenience of the most trivial nature. To try and use that free speach has been abandoned to the hecklers is ridiculous.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but that is just silly. So, as long as the inconvenience is "trivial", it is no infringement on free speech? I suppose the oddity of your response may come from the sharply different notions of free speech in the US versus Australia; a good primer on the issues in the US can be found here. Of special relevance to the original example is the issue of a public forum;

Public forum — Under the public-forum doctrine, government officials have less authority to restrict speech in places that by tradition have been open for free expression. Such an area is called a public forum. In its 1983 decision Perry Education Ass’n v. Perry Local Educators Ass’n, the U.S. Supreme Court wrote: “In places which by long tradition or by government fiat have been devoted to assembly and debate, the rights of the state to limit expressive activity are sharply circumscribed.”

Also Viewpoint Discrimination;

Viewpoint discrimination — A regulation is considered to discriminate on the basis of viewpoint when it attacks a particular individual’s or group’s message, as opposed to the mode in which that message is conveyed. Such laws are facially unconstitutional and are considered an especially egregious form of content discrimination. For example, a law prohibiting cross-burning in general have been found to be unconstitutional, whereas a law banning cross-burning with the intent to intimidate have been found not to be unconstitutional. See Virginia v. Black (2003).

sebster wrote:And your article on the apparent mass wave of censorship sweeping across Australia was terribly written, and almost completely missed the point of the issue. If that's the kind of crap media you rely on it's no surprise you've formed the ridiculous opinion above.

Well, when you put it soooo articulately like that... I'll just say that I'm with Professor Garrick on this one (but he's only a Professor of Law, no doubt unaware of the intricacies of... the...law... yeaaaah).

Polonius wrote:
SCOTUS has held that public forums cannot be regulated for content, even if owned by the government and not a traditional forum. A school classroom opened up for clubs/groups is a classic example of such.

Is a public school classroom really "public"?

whitedragon wrote:

Polonius wrote:
SCOTUS has held that public forums cannot be regulated for content, even if owned by the government and not a traditional forum. A school classroom opened up for clubs/groups is a classic example of such.

Is a public school classroom really "public"?

When the policy is to allow groups to use them for meetings, it is.

It's not a "traditional" public forum like a sidewalk or park, but it's a designated public forum.

Buzzsaw wrote:Burn a Book of Mormon? Letters and harsh words come your way.
Burn a King James Bible? Letters and harsh words come your way.
Burn a Torah Scroll? Letters and harsh words come your way.
Burn the Holy Koran? People will die, and you will be condemned by people in the highest reaches of government and .

Really?

sebster wrote:

Buzzsaw wrote:With all due respect, you're wasting your time; capitulation to the hecklers isn't an ongoing battle, it's a war almost completely won, by the hecklers.

What? We're talking about a case where political group had to move their meeting from one venue to another. It is, at worst, an inconvenience of the most trivial nature. To try and use that free speach has been abandoned to the hecklers is ridiculous.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but that is just silly. So, as long as the inconvenience is "trivial", it is no infringement on free speech? I suppose the oddity of your response may come from the sharply different notions of free speech in the US versus Australia...

Really, really?

sebster wrote:And your article on the apparent mass wave of censorship sweeping across Australia was terribly written, and almost completely missed the point of the issue. If that's the kind of crap media you rely on it's no surprise you've formed the ridiculous opinion above.

Well, when you put it soooo articulately like that... I'll just say that I'm with Professor Garrick on this one (but he's only a Professor of Law, no doubt unaware of the intricacies of... the...law... yeaaaah).

I read it, and it was a pile of gak as far as law articles go. "Methink's he doth protest too much!" What is this guy, 15?

Polonius wrote:

whitedragon wrote:

Polonius wrote:
SCOTUS has held that public forums cannot be regulated for content, even if owned by the government and not a traditional forum. A school classroom opened up for clubs/groups is a classic example of such.

Is a public school classroom really "public"?

When the policy is to allow groups to use them for meetings, it is.

It's not a "traditional" public forum like a sidewalk or park, but it's a designated public forum.

I would say that's grasping a little bit. The school may be a public school funded by government money, but the "school's policy" is set by the school board for the pursuit of learning for children.

From the Citizen's Media Law Project:
http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/access-public-property
Property That Is Open to the Public for a Limited Purpose

Your right to access government-owned property that is only partially open to the public is a bit more limited. If the general public is permitted to access only certain areas or for certain limited purposes, you right to access the property for newsgathering purposes is similarly limited. For example, some parts of a courthouse are open to the general public, but portions of the courtrooms themselves are accessible only by the parties in the litigation and judges' chambers are completely off limits to the public.

However, some public property, even though it is open only for limited purposes, can take on the attributes of a public forum discussed above. A classic example of this type of property is public schools and universities. Although public school and university buildings are not wholly open to the public, some parts of a campus may be considered a public forum. If a school's large open quad is accessed from public sidewalks and streets and freely used by the general public with no apparent objection from the school administration, then the quad may be considered "dedicated" to public use, and therefore more like the traditional public forums of the public park and sidewalk. Additionally, if the school opens certain of its rooms for non-school meetings that are open to the public, those rooms, during those times, will be treated as public forums.

Remember that because public schools are not entirely public forums, school administrators often have the discretion to restrict the entry of outsiders, particularly while the school is in session. Check in with the school administration before entering school grounds or you may be liable for trespass. Additionally, some states laws prohibit people from loitering within a certain distance while school is in session. These "school loitering laws" are mainly aimed at keeping sexual predators and drug dealers away from schoolchildren, but be aware that their language may be broad enough to cover lawful or innocent activity as well.

Right access isn't the issue. The school can padlock the doors five minutes after the last bell, or run a men's homeless shelter all night.

What a government can't do is allow certain groups to use facilities based on the content of their message. By allowing some political groups access to the property, they can't not allow others.

They could have only allowed groups that worked with kids, or something based on the mission of the school. But that's not what this was about.

Polonius wrote:Right access isn't the issue. The school can padlock the doors five minutes after the last bell, or run a men's homeless shelter all night.

What a government can't do is allow certain groups to use facilities based on the content of their message. By allowing some political groups access to the property, they can't not allow others.

They could have only allowed groups that worked with kids, or something based on the mission of the school. But that's not what this was about.

The government didn't do anything, the school did, which they have every right too.

Polonius wrote:I'd say going with my gut that unless there was a credible threat, the school shouldn't have denied the group access. Political groups, by definition, are going to discuss controversial things.

My gut, based on years of experience with low level administrators, tells me they saw the contraversy brewing on the horizon, and seriously looked at whether it was worth it. They would have recognised that facilitating meetings for local political groups really wasn't what they're there to do, and looked for an excuse to tell the group to go elsewhere.

I'd be surprised if the school allowed any political groups to meet on its premises in future.

I'd be concerned if the group in question was unable to meet anywhere else, as then they would have suffered a real and measurable impact on their right to free speach and free assembly. But they found another meeting place, their inconvenience was trivial and the school was able to get back to focussing on what it ought to be focussing on.

Happy story.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:But if all that exists is a vague idea that someone might get violent because of the content of the speech, the school should not (IMO) stop the speech.

Significant other questions involve how hard it is for the speech to happen at some other time, and how hard it is for the speech to be simply relocated. And what makes the issue really tricky... how important is the speech?

That last one is, of course, a great big old can of worms.

But life's like that. Absolute hard line positions don't really work, you have to be pragmatic, and accept that sometimes a temporary delay in a minor speech is worth it for the sake of public safety.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Buzzsaw wrote:Not to put too fine a point on it, but that is just silly. So, as long as the inconvenience is "trivial", it is no infringement on free speech? I suppose the oddity of your response may come from the sharply different notions of free speech in the US versus Australia

Yes, in that Americans often perceive all free speech as a holy writ, whereas we're a lot more practical about it here.

Put simply, yes, as long as the inconvenience is trivial and you were able to exercise your right to free speech anyway, then I don't see any point in getting all 1st amendment over the issue. Just because, conceivably, you might be able to demonstrate in front of the Supreme Court that your right to free speech was impeded because you totally had to move venue and send out a group sms telling everyone where you were going to meet instead, it doesn't mean you need to actually take it to court. It doesn't mean you need to even raise the spectre of constitutional rights.

Won't someone think of the poor superintendant? He's just some guy who wants this crap to go away, so he can back to making sure kids get educated.

Well, when you put it soooo articulately like that... I'll just say that I'm with Professor Garrick on this one (but he's only a Professor of Law, no doubt unaware of the intricacies of... the...law... yeaaaah).

Clearly I wasn't very articulate, because you missed the point entirely. The article you cited was terrible, an entirely incompetent description of the matter, written purely to provoke fear and outrage.

Somehow my criticism of that gakky article caused you to believe that I somehow support the plaintiffs, and think Andrew Bolt should lose the court case. I don't. I don't believe offense alone, even racial villification, is enough to justify censorship, and I don't agree with the original piece of legislation.

Your second article does a good job of addressing the topic. Your first article didn't.

Buzzsaw wrote:
A clinical phobia is an irrational fear, but not all -phobias are of that nature. Cynophobia, for example, is an irrational fear of dogs; photophobia, in contrast, is a physiological and very rational reaction to light caused by underlying conditions.

Photophobia is dual condition. It is both the sensation of pain due to exposure to light, and the resulting, and apparently irrational, fear that stems from it. Its also worth noting that phobia are not necessarily irrational. People who suffer from Cynophobia, to take your example, often suffered a particularly traumatic experience that involved dogs, and subsequently develop a strong fear of them in order to avoid exceptionally extreme trauma.

Phobias, like most psychological phenomena, have a lot of odd weirdness left in the definitions due to the speed at which psychology has evolved.

Buzzsaw wrote:
As to the rather odd objection that this line only addresses the fear of a small, malignant minority... well, duh. Is there some rational fear based on fear of the slacker subculture every major religion has in abundance? A poster earlier claimed that this line of reasoning was like blaming Christianity for the actions of the KKK; this a) reflects a misunderstanding of the relationship between Christianity and the KK so divorced from reality it should be astonishing,...

Its actually not quite so far off as you might think. he KKK wasn't itself explicitly associated with the Church, because the Church is a distinct institution in its own right with the capacity to make, or not make, its own pronouncements; pronouncements that tend to be regarded as more definitive of Christianity than those of average, self-proclaimed Christians. By comparison, there is no such central, institutionalized body that can be thought of as making definitive statements regarding Islam; meaning that differentiating between Muslims and Islam is much harder from the perspective of an outside observer.

The Taliban was an Islamic organization because it claimed to be one, but it didn't possess the same sort of legate connection to historicity as the Catholic, or even Protestant, Church.

sebster wrote:Significant other questions involve how hard it is for the speech to happen at some other time, and how hard it is for the speech to be simply relocated. And what makes the issue really tricky... how important is the speech?

That last one is, of course, a great big old can of worms.

Are you OK with government censoring speech based on the perceived value of that speech?

edit: For example, I want to host a gathering to discuss a local ordinance requiring dogs to be on red leashes at all times. The school (open to public debate) decides they don't want to spend the money to light the parking lot that night (but they do for all other political issues). Are you suggesting that the school would be right to refuse to hear my side, simply based on the perceived importance of the issue?

I think we're largely agreed that it is inappropriate to deny access based on content of speech, unless there is some substantially compelling reason.

I do not believe safety was listed as the deciding factor. But it could still be contrary to the school's and the students' best interests to host a gathering which was primarily for the purpose of denigrating a religion.